It looks like you're enjoying the forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members and much more. Register now!

Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

I start a bank, someone deposits £100. I, the bank lend £50 to someone who now owes the bank £50. The bank still has £50.

Where has money been created?

Banks don't lend out deposits they create new money with each loan. One side is the loan deposit the other side the account to pay back. So the bank has an asset the loan and a liability the potential default on the loan.

I start a bank, someone deposits £100. I, the bank lend £50 to someone who now owes the bank £50. The bank still has £50.

Where has money been created?

I was always under the impression that if you were to deposit £100 into the bank from your savings the bank would have £100. From that £100 they are able to issue loans at a multiple of your £100. Say for example 10 times (I have no idea what the multiple is these days) meaning that from your £100 they can lend £1000. That £900 doesn't actually exist - it's magic.

If the bank is lending to uk houses with 30% plus deposits the £900 is as safe as houses () therefore the risk is minimal. If however fanny may and freddy mac loan it to a load of mobile homes is America at 110% (or northern rock) it is somewhat less safe.

It's basically gambling - hence the global credit crunch in 2008. The banks held too few reserves and too little equity in the assets.

Caveat: this could very well all be bollocks. It's my simple brain understanding

I was always under the impression that if you were to deposit £100 into the bank from your savings the bank would have £100. From that £100 they are able to issue loans at a multiple of your £100. Say for example 10 times (I have no idea what the multiple is these days) meaning that from your £100 they can lend £1000. That £900 doesn't actually exist - it's magic.
..................

I'm not sure they can do that directly I think they have to keep a percentage of the initial deposit something like 10% it used to be higher for building socs. I'm sure Alder can fill all that in.
Here's a vid that explains it and how multiple loans effectively do that.

This article, in the linked pdf, explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.

• Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits.
• The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.

What they mean in the last bullet point is the lower the interest rate the more demand for loans and vice-versa

And here is the main explanation - and within it the fact that your economics degree lied to you on money creation.

"The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:

• Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits. (when making loans)

Nothing has really been created it all depends on the bloke that put the £100 quid in the first place getting his £100 back.

Now that I've worked out what cdm is on about I'll have a think about the original post, I think the government may have already tried it (and failed according to the derision of the usual commies no doubt including cdm).

I was always under the impression that if you were to deposit £100 into the bank from your savings the bank would have £100. From that £100 they are able to issue loans at a multiple of your £100. Say for example 10 times (I have no idea what the multiple is these days) meaning that from your £100 they can lend £1000. That £900 doesn't actually exist - it's magic.

If the bank is lending to uk houses with 30% plus deposits the £900 is as safe as houses () therefore the risk is minimal. If however fanny may and freddy mac loan it to a load of mobile homes is America at 110% (or northern rock) it is somewhat less safe.

It's basically gambling - hence the global credit crunch in 2008. The banks held too few reserves and too little equity in the assets.

Caveat: this could very well all be bollocks. It's my simple brain understanding

Wrong again - banks are required by international regulation to have capital buffers against bad loans. Banks do not lend out depositors money. Other wise the volume of supply would go up and down according to deposits - it does not.

Nothing has really been created it all depends on the bloke that put the £100 quid in the first place getting his £100 back.

Now that I've worked out what cdm is on about I'll have a think about the original post, I think the government may have already tried it (and failed according to the derision of the usual commies no doubt including cdm).

What are you trying to say here? And its not me - its the Bank of England's explanation of modern money creation.

What us commies and some libertarian economists are saying is that banks should be the model you think they are. Which is two functions.

1. They provide a transaction account for your everyday needs
2. They provide a deposit account for savers on which they pay interest

The risk to the saver is the bank has to find investment opportunities for your money - it can't create new money for the products it uses to make profits - ie loans and mortgages.

So in this model the bank does not create new money when it makes loans - it uses your money.

This is called 100% reserve banking - ie for every £1 it lends it must have a £1 on deposit.

Wrong again - banks are required by international regulation to have capital buffers against bad loans. Banks do not lend out depositors money. Other wise the volume of supply would go up and down according to deposits - it does not.

Sorry. What I meant was when one gets a mortgage with 30% deposit one does not actually deposit anything obviously. The bank however (I thought) has to have certain amounts in reserve made up from a variety of sources (product fees/interest etc). They are not actually loaning the deposit (hence £1000 being available from £100 at a (made up) 10x multiple.

I thought that since 2009 the banks had to have higher capital buffers based on the money they hold and the multiples they can therefore lend. This was reduced in 2016 to encourage the banks to lend more to keep the economy ticking over therefore directly meaning that the volume of supply does go up and down depending on how much the BOE states as capital buffer?

Suppose you want to buy a house. You go to a bank and ask to borrow £1m. The bank assesses you and makes a call on whether you are good for it. It agrees to lend you £1m.

Now it doesn’t actually give you money. Let’s pretend it doesn’t even have £1m. It presses a button on a computer and the computer says you owe it £1m and it owes another bank (the bank who the person who you bought the house from banks with) £1m.

Now suppose that other bank lends £1m it doesn’t have to another person to buy a house from someone who banks with the first bank. It is owed £1m from that person and owes the first bank £1m.

At the end of the day both banks owe each other £1m and it is balanced. Yet the balance sheets of both banks have been grossed up by £1m which is entirely new. And the banks are now getting interest on this money. The interest they make from the two borrowers is more than they pay on the deposits.

That’s an extremely basic version of what he is saying. The next thing he will say is it is outrageous the banks make money on this as they created the money themselves.

__________________
The Defector looks like no other breaking pitch in the game. It is well-supinated, leaving the right hand of Fernandez at a fastball trajectory before the laws of physics cease to apply and the laws of awesome take over.

85% of MPs were unaware that new money is created every time a bank extends a loan. Were you?

Shock data shows that most MPs do not know how money is created. Responding to a survey commissioned by Positive Money just before the June election, 85% were unaware that new money was created every time a commercial bank extended a loan, while 70% thought that only the government had the power to create new money.

The results are only a shock if you didnít see the last poll of MPs on exactly this topic, in 2014, revealing broadly the same level of ignorance. Indeed, the real shock is that MPs still, without embarrassment, answer surveys.

Yet almost all our hot-button political issues, from social security to housing, relate back to the meaning and creation of money; so if the people making those choices donít have a clue, that isnít without consequence.

How is money created? Some is created by the state, but usually in a financial emergency. For instance, the crash gave rise to quantitative easing Ė money pumped directly into the economy by the government. The vast majority of money (97%) comes into being when a commercial bank extends a loan. Meanwhile, 27% of bank lending goes to other financial corporations; 50% to mortgages (mainly on existing residential property); 8% to high-cost credit (including overdrafts and credit cards); and just 15% to non-financial corporates, that is, the productive economy.

Whatís wrong with that? On the corporate financial side, bank-lending inflates asset prices, which concentrates wealth in the hands of the wealthy. On the mortgage side, house prices rise to meet the amount the lender is prepared to lend, rather than being moored to wages. The lender benefits enormously from larger mortgages and longer periods of indebtedness; the homeowner benefits slightly from a bigger asset, but obviously spends longer in debt servitude; the renter loses out completely.

Is there a magic money tree? All money comes from a magic tree, in the sense that money is spirited from thin air. There is no gold standard. Banks do not work to a money-multiplier model, where they extend loans as a multiple of the deposits they already hold. Money is created on faith alone, whether that is faith in ever-increasing housing prices or any other given investment. This does not mean that creation is risk-free: any government could create too much and spawn hyper-inflation. Any commercial bank could create too much and generate over-indebtedness in the private economy, which is what has happened. But it does mean that money has no innate value, it is simply a marker of trust between a lender and a borrower. So it is the ultimate democratic resource. The argument marshalled against social investment such as education, welfare and public services, that it is unaffordable because there is no magic money tree, is nonsensical. It all comes from the tree; the real question is, who is in charge of the tree?

What could we do instead? We could do QE for the people, overt monetary financing in which a government creates money for social benefit, such as green infrastructure or education. Or helicopter money, a central bank distributing it to everyone, either in a one-off citizenís dividend or a regular citizenís basic income. The nature of centrally created money should itself be opened up for debate, whose starting point is: if we agree that commercially created money is skewing the economy, can we then agree that it should be created by a public authority, even if we donít yet know what that authority would look like.

very interesting
as we know the tories found the magic tree with 1 billion to the DUP. Just think what we could have done with that money

Suppose you want to buy a house. You go to a bank and ask to borrow £1m. The bank assesses you and makes a call on whether you are good for it. It agrees to lend you £1m.

Now it doesnít actually give you money. Letís pretend it doesnít even have £1m. It presses a button on a computer and the computer says you owe it £1m and it owes another bank (the bank who the person who you bought the house from banks with) £1m.

Now suppose that other bank lends £1m it doesnít have to another person to buy a house from someone who banks with the first bank. It is owed £1m from that person and owes the first bank £1m.

At the end of the day both banks owe each other £1m and it is balanced. Yet the balance sheets of both banks have been grossed up by £1m which is entirely new. And the banks are now getting interest on this money. The interest they make from the two borrowers is more than they pay on the deposits.

Thatís an extremely basic version of what he is saying. The next thing he will say is it is outrageous the banks make money on this as they created the money themselves.

Purely out of interest do you know the current capital buffer the bank has to have to loan the £1m. I'm interested to know the current multiple.

Purely out of interest do you know the current capital buffer the bank has to have to loan the £1m. I'm interested to know the current multiple.

No idea.

__________________
The Defector looks like no other breaking pitch in the game. It is well-supinated, leaving the right hand of Fernandez at a fastball trajectory before the laws of physics cease to apply and the laws of awesome take over.